Biblical Principles to Preserve Sanity in the Midst of Moral Chaos and a Response to a Baptist Pastor in North Carolina

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown offers seven principles to help you keep your spiritual focus and your faith strong while living in the midst of moral chaos and then responds to an opinion piece against the marriage amendment written by a Baptist pastor in Lexington, NC.

 

Hour 1:

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whatever situation you are facing, and no matter how Hellish things are that surround you, Jesus is Lord! Our God continues to rule and reign, and He will bring light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and triumph out of defeat! Focus on Him and things will turn!

Hour 2:

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is a call on the people of North Carolina to stand up and do what is right. There is a call for us to say we will do what is right regardless of cost, consequence, or backlash because we love people and we love God; therefore we will stand strong for righteousness in North Carolina and send a message to the Nation!

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

Angels, Demons, and Deliverance (12 hours of teaching on CD)
For Only $10 Postage Paid!
A Savings of More Than 50%!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or order online!
Other Resources:

Giants of the Faith [mp3 CD] with Dr. Brown: Experience the ministry and message of men and women of God who shook their world! Charles Finney, George Whitfield, John (Praying) Hyde, Smith Wigglesworth, John G. Lake, Maria Woodworth-Etter, John Alexander Dowie, and Adoniram Judson.

 

283 Comments
  1. Boris,

    And I noticed that you didn’t deal with those quotes from the Wikipedia articles.

    No false dichotomies in Lewis’s or my posts. There are almost no current scholars that think that there was not a historical Jesus. You are guilty of a false unichotomy. You see nothing but what you have painted on the inside of your glasses. You are way behind the times with your outdated revisionist claims and evolutionary ideas.

    Shalom

  2. Ken
    Boris, If G-d was proven to you today, Would you love him? Could you love him?..

    Response: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? Could you love him? Don’t avoid this question Ken. I asked it to make you think for yourself. Now do it and tell me what you would do. Then I’ll answer your question.

    in order to love someone, There must be a relationship, Some kind of inter action, G-d being a spirit we much worship and love him in spirit, Therefore all the proof in the world will never get you any closer to G-d,

    Response: How can you have a relationship with someone you can’t disagree with and who demands you subjugate yourself to their every whim? In our society we call that an abusive relationship and you would be advised to get away from this person and seek help immediately. You might actually want to think about that Ken. There are support groups for recovering ex-Christians.

    Each and every one of us much either decides to except the word of G-d as the truth or reject it as a lie,

    Response: What I reject is YOUR claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It has a talking donkey in it. I’d sooner believe it was written by a drunken horse.

    For me I will serve the unseen G-d and place all my trust in his Son Jesus the Christ. I might be narrow minded to the so called smart people, but narrow is the road to salvation, and wide is the road to destruction. Boris what you have to asked yourself is what road are you on my friend?..

    Response: It doesn’t matter because I know how to use the entire highway system, I’m in a really hot car with a really hot chick and we’re having a blast.

    Sheila
    “Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution”
    by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

    Response: You sent me a link to a creationist propaganda website, not to a peer reviewed scientific paper. And you wonder why I don’t bother reading that drivel. You people are completely incapable of answering my objections in your own words so you post links to websites with disinformation that you think I haven’t seen before. If you can’t defend your claims in your own words then don’t make them in the first place.

    Boris,
    I don’t have much spare time at all these days let alone the time to deconstruct your worn arguments. It’s been done to death already. If you’re not willing to read anything, as you stated to Bo, would you have me write out what’s already been covered time and again?

    Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis. But you don’t have time to respond to one single objection to your claims about messianic prophecies while you continue posting other comments directed to me? Sure. Don’t pour water on me and tell me it’s raining. I want you to prove that the gospel writers did not write their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled them.

    Do you honestly think that I (we) haven’t considered and thoroughly investigated the claims you make before arriving at our conclusion? I can assure you we’re likely better informed of those theories contrary to Christian doctrine than you are. What is it about atheists that cause them such angst when they encounter thinking Christians who’ve done their homework?

    Response: I know that you did not consider that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled them. Had you considered that problem BEFORE you were indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity it would have raised many other suspicions that the Bible isn’t what Christians claim it is. But now that other people have indoctrinated you with the fear of hell you can’t just accept the perfectly logical and plausible account of how the gospels were written. Have fun with that. I know very well you’ve never considered this problem before or you would have some kind of rebuttal locked and loaded. But your silence proves the desperation of your position. No matter where you search for answers on the Internet you won’t find them. Once again your God and your religion have let you down. All you have to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospel writers did not write their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. You say you’ve considered this problem so what’s the answer?

    Bo
    And I noticed that you didn’t deal with those quotes from the Wikipedia articles.

    Response: Why do we test drugs and surgical procedures on animals before we try them on humans? How come we didn’t do that until we realized that humans are related to other animals? Why would we expect a rat to react to a chemical in much the same way a human would if humans and rats were not related? My daughter is working on a project that studies anomalous antibody morphologies in unrelated species because this has led to a new and more effective drug design for single domain antibodies. In other words evolutionary biologists are saving and improving lives. People like you are telling them they are wasting their time and they shouldn’t be looking into things like the origin of the immune system. That’s what Michael Behe said when Intelligent Design Magic had its day and court and lost. Knowing how the immune system evolved is important in learning how to deal with disease. But your religious ideology is more important to you than public safety and the health and well being of humanity. Do you have any excuse for that?

    No false dichotomies in Lewis’s or my posts.

    Response: No dice Bo. You can’t just wave your Christian magic wand and make my objections disappear without responding to and refuting them. Otherwise you concede the point. That is that both your arguments and those of C.S. Lewis are fatally flawed because they are indeed false dichotomies, which I clearly demonstrated. I showed that there are more than two possibilities in Lewis’ ‘Lord or liar and lunatic’ argument one being that Jesus never existed at all. I proved that people don’t have to either worship the Christian God or themselves by showing that people can worship many other things or nothing at all. Now until you effectively refute those arguments my criticism of your arguments stands. That’s how it works in a debate Bo. But it doesn’t really matter because you lost this debate a long time ago when you failed to produce secular references to Jesus and tell us all what they said. You’re all talk Bo, just like your friend Sheila. If you can’t back up your claims then don’t bother making any because I’m going to call you on them every time.

    There are almost no current scholars that think that there was not a historical Jesus.

    Response: Based on what Bo? You’re argument is a logical fallacy known as An Appeal to Authority and is therefore impermissible in debate. You couldn’t produce one single historical reference or piece of evidence dating no more than 40 years from the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. Most Bible scholars are Christians so of course they have accepted the existence of Jesus on faith. However no historian will touch the story of Jesus because historians need reliable evidence to write their accounts and there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. Tell me everything you can about Jesus just using your secular accounts. Poof, there went your whole case.

    You are guilty of a false unichotomy. You see nothing but what you have painted on the inside of your glasses. You are way behind the times with your outdated revisionist claims and evolutionary ideas.

    Response: Claiming evolution is outdated is no different than saying the earth is flat – just like the Bible says it is.

  3. Boris, you claim that there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. What is your most reasonable explanation for the origin of the Christian faith? Also, our faith is called Christianity because the name of the founder is Jesus Christ. This was a movement that survived through the centuries. Why were people believing in a man who they say rose from the dead? Why would anyone believe such a thing? Why would first century Jews give their lives and reputations for such a crazy idea? Where did they come up with this idea and why did people in Jerusalem believe it? If Jesus wasn’t real, couldn’t the Christian faith be exposed right there and then as a fraud since Jesus was from that area?

  4. Boris,

    If you’d like a list of the books in my library at home I’ll be happy to supply them for you. After you’ve read them all come back and we’ll talk.

    Concerning the link; so anything that scientists uncover as absolutely true can’t be trusted if they’re Christians?

    Again, your very, very broad and erroneous statement about how and why anyone of us have accepted the Bible as true and Messiah, Jesus, as being who he said he was, is, and always will be is so utterly lame but apparently you’re sticking to the only well rehearsed answer you have. So, who was it that brain-washed you into espousing that falsehood? Or you just came up with that yourself? Are you afraid of hell, because I’m not as I’ll never see it? I believe I’ve heard you mention hell almost from day one.

    Would you like the list or not?

  5. Boris: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? answer: No, Because Jesus the Christ has proven to me he (is) the one and only true G-d.

    Boris: How can you have a relationship with someone you can’t disagree with and who demands you subjugate yourself to their every whim?

    answer: If your knew Jesus all your preconceptions of him would be proven wrong. You would find a loving friend who would understand your concerns and thoughts about him and his word, without judgement or condemnation.

    Boris: What I reject is YOUR claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It has a talking donkey in it. I’d sooner believe it was written by a drunken horse.

    Answer: parrots talk, even dog’s have been trained to talk I heard one on t.v say i love you,so the fact the bible said a donkey talked is not hard to believe concerning Jesus is G_d and nothing is imposable for him.

    So once again I’ll say to you, your playing on a rock that won’t be moved…Peace,love and joy to you.

  6. The post that Shiela linked on the human brain development gene function is very interesting.

    See also this site (similar summary report is found in several publications):

    http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867412004618

    This quote is telling:
    “Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication created a novel gene functionantagonizing parental SRGAP2 functionimmediately at birth 23 mya, which is a time corresponding to the transition from Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion.”

    This statement shows a priori assumption that evolution is true, and links the scientific discovery to speculations (largely un-substantiated) about human evolutionary history. Typical and tragic process when real scientific discoveries are used to support a pet postulate “theory” which cannot be tested or repeated. Such is the faith of the new generation of evolutionists.

  7. I have finally figured it out! Those cave fish that lost their eyesight because of “evolution” have shown us why there are atheists starting to show up on the scene in last 150 years. They have lost genetic information. They cannot see spiritually. The cannot come the the light because their deeds are evil.(John 3:19-20) It is a heart problem, not a brain problem. So we need to crossbreed them, with the “Cross” in a way that their offspring will one day be able to see just like those scientists did for those poor cave fish 🙂

    Genetic information is lost over time. It does not increase. It takes intelligence, not chance, to produce life in the first place and to fix it when it has problems later on.

    But let this be a lesson to us. Our offspring will loose spiritual genetic information and the ability to recognize their creator if we let them crossbreed with atheists. The Atheists have had owned the educational system for a long time and it produces the likes of Boris. If you send your children to public school, do not be surprised if you end up with a Boris for an adult child.

    Psalms 14
    1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    John 3
    19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

    Proverbs 13
    20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

    1 Corinthians 15
    33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”

    Shalom

  8. R. Kneubuhl

    Boris, you claim that there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. What is your most reasonable explanation for the origin of the Christian faith?

    Response: Christianity and Judaism both evolved from other older sun worshiping cults and Islam from Arabian moon worshiping cults. Moses and Mohammad never existed either so don’t feel too bad about Jesus not existing. Christianity as we know it today did not exist until it was invented by Constantine and is the result of religious syncretism. Constantine thought if he included the Jewish books he could get those pesky Jews to conform to his new one world religion (Catholic means universal), which is why we have an Old Testament.

    Sheila
    Boris,
    If you’d like a list of the books in my library at home I’ll be happy to supply them for you. After you’ve read them all come back and we’ll talk.
    Concerning the link; so anything that scientists uncover as absolutely true can’t be trusted if they’re Christians?

    Response: No scientist would ever say something was absolutely true. Scientists tell us that all findings are subject to future revision. If you new even the first thing about science you would know that. But you don’t because you don’t.

    Again, your very, very broad and erroneous statement about how and why anyone of us have accepted the Bible as true and Messiah, Jesus, as being who he said he was, is, and always will be is so utterly lame but apparently you’re sticking to the only well rehearsed answer you have. So, who was it that brain-washed you into espousing that falsehood? Or you just came up with that yourself? Are you afraid of hell, because I’m not as I’ll never see it? I believe I’ve heard you mention hell almost from day one.
    Would you like the list or not?

    Response: You Christians don’t ever realize that you’re in as much danger of going to the Muslim hell for your rejection of Islam as anyone else is in going to the Christian hell. I don’t want a list of books. I want you to respond to my claim that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled the. None of your books can refute that fact and neither can you. You have just conceded the point and lost our debate. Don’t write anything else directed to me unless you admit to conceding that point or offer some kind of rebuttal, no matter how lame it might be. You can just deal with the fact that you’ve lost another debate with an atheist and wallow in defeat.

    Ken
    Boris: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? answer: No, Because Jesus the Christ has proven to me he (is) the one and only true G-d.

    Response: Okay well science has proved to me that the Christian God does not exist.

    answer: If your knew Jesus all your preconceptions of him would be proven wrong. You would find a loving friend who would understand your concerns and thoughts about him and his word, without judgement or condemnation.

    Response: Then he would understand why I don’t believe he exists.

    Answer: parrots talk, even dog’s have been trained to talk I heard one on t.v say i love you,so the fact the bible said a donkey talked is not hard to believe concerning Jesus is G_d and nothing is imposable for him.

    Response: When the premise of your argument is part of your conclusion you’re proved absolutely nothing.

    So once again I’ll say to you, your playing on a rock that won’t be moved…Peace,love and joy to you.

    Response: In other words your mind cannot be changed even if you see new evidence that you may very well be wrong. Thanks for admitting just how indoctrinated you really are.

    Matt B
    This statement shows a priori assumption that evolution is true, and links the scientific discovery to speculations (largely un-substantiated) about human evolutionary history. Typical and tragic process when real scientific discoveries are used to support a pet postulate “theory” which cannot be tested or repeated. Such is the faith of the new generation of evolutionists.

    Response: You problem isn’t with me or “evolutionists” it’s with your own CHRISTIAN ACADEMIC COMMUNITY, that insists on teaching evolution by natural selection and has loudly and clearly rejected Intelligent Design Magic and Creation Magic. Most creationists have never set foot on a college campus so they have no clue that Christian colleges all teach evolution. Even you people on this blog didn’t realize that until I told you. How embarrassing and humiliating that must be for all of you fundamentalists. Why don’t you take your complaints about evolution to your own Christian scientists who insist in teaching it? Because you know they will laugh in your faces. You know very well evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth that there will ever be. One more proof that the Bible is a fairy book. Matt, I didn’t think you’d have the nerve to post anything else directed to me after the way I turned your arguments on their heads and used them against you. That HAD to be humiliating for you. I sure got some big belly laughs from doing that to your arguments.

    Bo
    I have finally figured it out! Those cave fish that lost their eyesight because of “evolution” have shown us why there are atheists starting to show up on the scene in last 150 years. They have lost genetic information. They cannot see spiritually. The cannot come the the light because their deeds are evil.(John 3:19-20) It is a heart problem, not a brain problem. So we need to crossbreed them, with the “Cross” in a way that their offspring will one day be able to see just like those scientists did for those poor cave fish
    Genetic information is lost over time. It does not increase.

    Response: That is creationist propaganda, not a fact. I alreaay refuted that point anyway. Should I repost my rebuttal to your propaganda?

    It takes intelligence, not chance, to produce life in the first place and to fix it when it has problems later on.

    Response: Life is designed from the bottom up, not from the top down. That is a fact, not a theory.

    But let this be a lesson to us. Our offspring will loose spiritual genetic information and the ability to recognize their creator if we let them crossbreed with atheists. The Atheists have had owned the educational system for a long time and it produces the likes of Boris. If you send your children to public school, do not be surprised if you end up with a Boris for an adult child.

    Response: Crossbreed with atheists? Your religious bigotry is just off the charts. If your religion were true you wouldn’t have to bludgeon your children into submission to religious dogma but you would simply tell them to search for truth themselves. But you don’t because you are afraid they’ll find the truth and it won’t be your religion. Spiritual genetic information? All children are born atheists and they would stay that way if their parents didn’t brainwash them with religious superstitions. A person’s original religion can accurately be predicted to be the religion of their parents. Thankfully my parents were not religious.

  9. Boris—“Response: No scientist would ever say something was absolutely true. Scientists tell us that all findings are subject to future revision. If you new even the first thing about science you would know that. But you don’t because you don’t.”

    WHAT?! That’s absurd. Forgive me for posting what’s already been established by our dictionaries:

    Definition of “Science”:

    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    Boris,

    I once thought just like you do. I studied the classic philosophers, read all of the atheist manifestos and seriously considered the secular writings concerning the religious myths of mankind. I learned the rules and language of logic and how to engage the defence of my position. Your professor obviously sold you short. He should have alerted you to the necessary pre-requisite when laying the foundation for any logical debate; that prior to your engaging your opponent you first need to be able to argue the premise from your opponent’s point of view before introducing yours.

    I am greatly saddened that you were so easily swayed by the fallacy of contrary reasoning. You tried to show that our belief is based solely on the human emotion of fear with no rational basis for bowing our knee to what you believe is an imaginary Creator God. The truth is that our belief involves the mind, the domain of the intellect where the processing of information takes shape, as well as the heart, where all emotion is seated. The gathering of the two, the mind and the heart, most would consider to be the soul of individual mankind. These three reside within us. Our soul’s not separate from our bodies, yet at the same time it is. How does evolution account for the dual nature of mankind as well as his conscious attribution that there is anything at all greater than himself in the first place? How does the subtraction or addition of genetic material possibly account for the unique spiritual nature of man? Man is unique in that he’s self-aware; he’s aware that he possesses a soul we could say. He’s just as aware of the dualism residing in his very nature. Can evolution explain man’s willingness to behave in ways that are contrary to his individual self preservation? If evolution is a model of random mutations where did the material come from that brought self-awareness, let alone the awareness of all creation extending to the very heavens? Animals don’t question whether or not it’s right to go hunt for a mate or to go kill some supper for the family, they just do it automatically. No moral choices involved. No dual nature to contend with. Man is uniquely embued with the knowledge of a Creator already in place. It is not the result of a virus or a mutation.

    If survival of the fittest is more appropriate, then you can write the final chapter on your evolutionary theory right now as survival will be purely by chance for you and your theory because you will have to concede the fittest as being the madman who succeeds in blowing the rest of mankind up! If I believed as you do that would be the natural conclusion that I would come to.

    Consider this silly idea for a moment. Imagine the universe as we understand it gathered inside of a balloon. God takes the balloon and hangs it by a string from a tree in his garden. He goes about doing what it is he does and a thought comes to him. He says to one of his angels, “That universe I created, have you any idea where I put it?” That general idea was borrowed from the producer of “The Star of Bethlehem” and it was so funny I’ve been wanting to use it! 🙂 Do you see how insufficient our knowledge is from that perspective?

    Psa 8:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Gittith. A Psalm of David.
    O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.

    Psa 8:2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.

    Psa 8:3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

    Psa 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

    Psa 8:5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

    Psa 8:6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,

    Psa 8:7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,

    Psa 8:8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

    Psa 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

  10. Boris, I wasn’t posting anything directed at you, but rather was contributing to the overall discussion. Nonetheless, evidence is evidence.

    What you have done in our earlier discussions is avoid answering direct questions, and changed the subject when I posted reasonable refutations of points you had made. That is why, after many exasperating attempts to engage you, our discussion ended.

  11. Boris, thanks for taking time to answer my question. I find it hard to believe that Constantine invented Christianity because even the great Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ (and early Christians) in his work, Annals, and he existed before Constantine was born. Christianity as we know it today didn’t begin in Rome according to what I’ve read in the writings of one of the greatest Roman historians. I know that we disagree, but I wondered what your thoughts were on the origin of the Christian faith.

  12. Constantine did not invent Christianity, nor did he invent Jesus as a man who actually taught, performed wonders, confounded the experts, loved with His whole life to the utmost. Many many references from non-Christian sources, and many many accepted analyses of the Christian texts and scriptures show that Jesus lived, that His followers believed and taught that He is resurrected. No reasonable person debates those facts. New evidence has thus far only strengthened that case.

    Boris, have you found the scientific publications for me that demonstrate the early cells with no DNA, that replicate by falling apart? That little problem unravels the whole postulate that life began from inanimate chemicals.

  13. Boris, your Response: In other words your mind cannot be changed even if you see new evidence that you may very well be wrong. Thanks for admitting just how indoctrinated you really are.

    answer: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For (since the creation of the world) His (invisible attributes are clearly seen), being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are (without excuse), because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man..

    Sound like the man in the mirror Boris?

    Peace ,love joy to you

  14. Sheila
    WHAT?! That’s absurd. Forgive me for posting what’s already been established by our dictionaries:
    Definition of “Science”:

    In science no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision or even outright rebuttal. Scientists are not absolutists the way you religionists are.

    I once thought just like you do.

    Response: That is not true. Never was I arrogant enough to claim I knew more about a particular branch of science than the scientists who actually work in that field. At least I know something about evolution. You do not and all the things you’ve said about it prove you’ve been misled by creationist propaganda. Everything you’ve supposedly learned about evolution is wrong. I don’t get my information about science from creationist propaganda the way you do. Your claim that you were once thought like me implies that you are somehow superior to me because you’ve accepted a lot of religious superstitions and let them rule your life. You have no business talking down to me like that especially after I made you concede on your claim about messianic prophecies and have patiently refuted everyone of your other claims as well.

    I studied the classic philosophers, read all of the atheist manifestos and seriously considered the secular writings concerning the religious myths of mankind.

    Response: Oh please. Do you really think I believe that? How come you could not raise even the tiniest objection to my claim that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophesies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them? You didn’t seriously consider that at all. Please tell us all how you came to the conclusion to reject that logical explanation for why it may seem like Jesus fulfilled messianic prophesies. It’s beyond me how you can expect me to believe what you say when you can offer not even the lamest rebuttal to my claims that you’ve supposedly considered so seriously. You ought to be brave enough to admit that my explanation caught you completely off guard because you never considered it before at all. Come on Sheila you’ve already proved that. None of the people on this blog have ever been confronted with this explanation before. You all live in a bubble. It caught them all off guard as well. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that no one has the nerve to step up to the plate and challenge this point, least of all you. This problem for you proves how Christians will always reject a logical explanation for something that is based on minimal assumptions in favor of a supernatural explanation that requires a whole bunch of assumptions many of which are absurd superstitions that require giant leaps of faith and none of which are evidence based.

    I learned the rules and language of logic and how to engage the defence of my position.

    Response: Ignoring a challenge, making appeals to authority, ignoring objections, repeating claims that have been refuted, and making assertions without evidence is not defending your position. Those things are impermissible in real debates but I find them to standard operating procedure for Christians in debates like this. It’s all you do.

    Your professor obviously sold you short.

    Response: Whoever convinced you to accept the Christian superstitions without providing evidence for any of them, sold you short. Way short.

    He should have alerted you to the necessary pre-requisite when laying the foundation for any logical debate; that prior to your engaging your opponent you first need to be able to argue the premise from your opponent’s point of view before introducing yours.

    Response: Your premise is this: Whatever you currently believe about the Bible is true and therefore anything that contradicts what you currently believe is automatically wrong. Of course the conclusion of your argument is always incorporated into your premise so with each and every one of your arguments you prove absolutely nothing.

    I am greatly saddened that you were so easily swayed by the fallacy of contrary itionreasoning. You tried to show that our belief is based solely on the human emotion of fear with no rational basis for bowing our knee to what you believe is an imaginary Creator God.

    Response: Of course bowing your knee to what OTHER PEOPLE have convinced you is a real God is an act of worship NOT friendship. So stop saying your religion is a relationship.

    The truth is that our belief involves the mind, the domain of the intellect where the processing of information takes shape, as well as the heart, where all emotion is seated. The gathering of the two, the mind and the heart, most would consider to be the soul of individual mankind.

    Response: The people who wrote the Bible actually believed the heart was more than a muscle for pumping blood and that it was where emotions came from. Maybe you do too, I don’t know. One more proof of just how ridiculous the Bible really is. In case you don’t really know, emotions come from the brain. There are scientific explanations for emotions. The most important point I want to make and this is very important is that on this subject there are two kinds of people in the world: Those who can control their emotions and those who let their emotions control them. I fall into the former category and you the latter. Acceptance of religious dogma is never a rational decision but rather an emotional one as you have just pointed out.

    These three reside within us. Our soul’s not separate from our bodies, yet at the same time it is. How does evolution account for the dual nature of mankind as well as his conscious attribution that there is anything at all greater than himself in the first place?

    Response: Belief in a soul is called a superstition. Where’s the evidence for such a thing? Evolution doesn’t have to account for something that doesn’t exist.

    How does the subtraction or addition of genetic material possibly account for the unique spiritual nature of man?

    Response: You mean the superstitious nature of man.

    Man is unique in that he’s self-aware; he’s aware that he possesses a soul we could say. He’s just as aware of the dualism residing in his very nature. Can evolution explain man’s willingness to behave in ways that are contrary to his individual self preservation? If evolution is a model of random mutations where did the material come from that brought self-awareness, let alone the awareness of all creation extending to the very heavens? Animals don’t question whether or not it’s right to go hunt for a mate or to go kill some supper for the family, they just do it automatically. No moral choices involved.

    Response: Not exactly. We can observe many instances of moral behavior in animals. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their community who are upset or sick and they work together to get food. Vampire bats share their food as well. Dolphins and porpoises push sick members of their pod to the surface to get air and whales will put themselves in harms way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants will risk their lives to save injured members of their family or herd. Mothers have loved and protected their young long before humans existed for obvious evolutionary reasons. How do you explain the existence of morality in the animal kingdom? Once again evolution has the answer and religion some nonsense about how all the animals will get along one day and stop eating each other when Jesus comes back. And you expect me to believe that someone who hasn’t been frightened out of their minds can actually believe your religious claims.

    No dual nature to contend with. Man is uniquely embued with the knowledge of a Creator already in place. It is not the result of a virus or a mutation.

    Response: That is not true. Everyone is born an atheist and they would stay that way if their parents or someone else didn’t indoctrinate them with religious beliefs. My brother and I are proof of that. “The vast majority of personal religious beliefs can accurately be predicted based solely on the beliefs of one’s parents or the culture one is raised in… Religionists should ask themselves, ‘Are my religious beliefs based on rationality and evidence or indoctrination?’” – John Bice

    If survival of the fittest is more appropriate, then you can write the final chapter on your evolutionary theory right now as survival will be purely by chance for you and your theory because you will have to concede the fittest as being the madman who succeeds in blowing the rest of mankind up! If I believed as you do that would be the natural conclusion that I would come to.

    Response: You have no idea what I believe because your conclusion is ridiculous. I already demonstrated that our knowledge of how nature structures itself through natural selection has helped us stop and even reverse survival of the fittest by allowing even the most unfit among us a chance at an enjoyable life.

    Consider this silly idea for a moment. Imagine the universe as we understand it gathered inside of a balloon. God takes the balloon and hangs it by a string from a tree in his garden. He goes about doing what it is he does and a thought comes to him. He says to one of his angels, “That universe I created, have you any idea where I put it?” That general idea was borrowed from the producer of “The Star of Bethlehem” and it was so funny I’ve been wanting to use it! Do you see how insufficient our knowledge is from that perspective?

    Matt
    Boris, I wasn’t posting anything directed at you, but rather was contributing to the overall discussion. Nonetheless, evidence is evidence.

    Response: Yes and arguments are NOT evidence. If there were really any evidence at all for God we would never hear the end of it from theists. However on evidence the theists are dead silent. Instead what they offer are only arguments and we all know what they are: The argument from design, the argument from morality, the argument from fine-tuning, the first cause argument that when refuted becomes the unmoved mover argument which of course is just as easily refuted as all the other fatally flawed arguments I just mentioned. If there were really evidence for the existence of God, not to mention all the things God has supposedly done (flood the earth etc.), then why all the fatally flawed arguments? I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that I’ve completely destroyed all of these arguments while patently exposing their flaws on this blog over the last few weeks.

    What you have done in our earlier discussions is avoid answering direct questions, and changed the subject when I posted reasonable refutations of points you had made. That is why, after many exasperating attempts to engage you, our discussion ended.

    Response: You have refuted nothing and watched a couple of your arguments turned on their heads and used against you. How did that feel Matt?

    R. Kneubuhl

    Boris, thanks for taking time to answer my question. I find it hard to believe that Constantine invented Christianity because even the great Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ (and early Christians) in his work, Annals, and he existed before Constantine was born. Christianity as we know it today didn’t begin in Rome according to what I’ve read in the writings of one of the greatest Roman historians. I know that we disagree, but I wondered what your thoughts were on the origin of the Christian faith.

    Response:

    Matt B

    Constantine did not invent Christianity, nor did he invent Jesus as a man who actually taught, performed wonders, confounded the experts, loved with His whole life to the utmost. Many many references from non-Christian sources, and many many accepted analyses of the Christian texts and scriptures show that Jesus lived, that His followers believed and taught that He is resurrected. No reasonable person debates those facts. New evidence has thus far only strengthened that case.

    Response: What new evidence? I’m calling you on that one Matt. Either tell us what this “new evidence” is or retract that ridiculous claim. Hearsay accounts from 60 to 80 or more years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus written by men who were not even alive when Jesus supposedly was prove only that there isn’t a shred of reliable evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. How embarrassing it must be for you to have to resort to that kind of hearsay, men repeating legends without giving their sources. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You’ve obviously never read Josephus. This guy claimed Hercules was a historical figure. Josephus claimed he witnessed a ten-foot tall giant casting out demons. Are you willing to accept those accounts as being true without question as well? You must know the passages in Josephus’ works that supposedly mention Jesus are suspected to be forgeries done by Church propagandist Eusebius even by the most conservative Christian scholars anyway. That just proves how desperate the early Church was to provide evidence for the greatest story ever sold. None of the other historians that supposedly wrote about Jesus even mentioned him by name. What does that prove may I ask? I mean besides the desperation of your position. Jesus Christ never existed. I’m sure of that. It’s the greatest story ever sold. Not a word of it is true.

    Boris, have you found the scientific publications for me that demonstrate the early cells with no DNA, that replicate by falling apart? That little problem unravels the whole postulate that life began from inanimate chemicals.

    Response: The scientific consensus is that DNA evolved from RNA.

    Ken
    answer: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

    Response: And I am certainly not ashamed to say that I don’t believe there is a God and I am positive that the Gods of Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not exist.

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For (since the creation of the world) His (invisible attributes are clearly seen), being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are (without excuse), because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man..

    Response: Just more proof that the Bible is wrong about many things. There have always been people who noticed that there was no need or evidence for God or a first cause. I am proof of that. So are all of the other atheists in the world. You can pretend we are unrighteous, rebellious or that we really believe but you are just lying to yourself to protect yourself from acknowledging the truth. I think you know that once you start considering that the Bible isn’t what OTHER PEOPLE have indoctrinated you to believe it is, your whole religion will unravel like a cheap sweater.

    Sound like the man in the mirror Ken?

  15. “Iit will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln

  16. Boris, We can agree on one thing for sure, I don’t believe in religion for religion sake either, but rather a relationship with the one and only true living G-d and Jesus his son by whom my relationship was made possible. something you can never understand unless you experience it, further more my so called indoctrination came from the the word of G-d (I.E) bible. and most impotently the Holy Spirit… Peace,love and Joy to you

  17. Proverbs 26
    4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    Psalms 14
    1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

    Shalom

  18. Scientists recognize tht RNA or other self-replicating complex molecules would not arise spontaneously. They are unstable and highly reactive and would quicly become corrupted in “primative earth” conditions- in fact these molecules are unstable and decay rapidly outside of the living cell unless kept within specifically controlled environment, free from energy sources such as UV, and other reactants.

    DNA is less reactive, so more suited for being the storehouse of information, maintaining stability for many millions of generations.

    Interestingly, self replicating RNA type molecules have been created in a labratory. It’s a brilliant piece of work really, and may be useful for all sorts of new drugs, treatments, or inventions. The experiment required controlled conditions, input from the scientists, and purposeful arrangement of the correct constituent molecules to get the end result the scientists desired.

    It is highly speculative that life arose from non-living molecules spontaneously. Not perhaps impossible in the sense that there is a very, very remote chance. But scientific research following the most improbable premise (based on evidence) is not recognized as good science.

    Not outside of the Darwinian or neo- Darwinian faithful, that is.

    Certainly, we cannot ever prove the theory of life arising from non-life with no “giver or originator of information”, as we cannot go back in time, and any experiment is by definition a directed process. So the question becomes, based on what we observe and believe we know (we are always learning more), what is the most reasonable conclusion when we consider the origin of life, in all its complexity, its diversity, the minutiae of detailed processes working so nearly perfectly together? We should most reasonably conclude that something or someone meant for it to be so.

  19. On transitional fossils:

    Statements in quotes are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

    My comments will not be in quotes.

    “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.”

    Common traits of an “ancestral” and a “descendant” group is language that assumes evolution, but does not prove it, as we shall see. The fact that an animal has traits that are common to other animals can just as easily insinuate a common designer. Given our environment, we would expect that certain common structures are what work well.

    “These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation.”

    These categories are man made and are “imposed” upon the facts. What if the imposition is wrong? Is there a “continuum of variation” or just a wide variety of traits? I vote for the latter.

    “Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.”

    So we cannot know for sure if the supposed transitional form is close to the supposed divergence of two kinds of creatures or not. Could this also mean that there is no real divergence, but just an extinct animal form that is not a transition at all?

    “Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups.”

    So the supposed transitions are not direct ancestors…Hmmm? If they are not direct ancestors, that means that there are still missing links, which if evolution was true, would probably be in the millions and billions given the vast differences compared with the few similarities, (Sounds like a missing chain instead of a missing link to me.) or that these transitions are dead ends and thus are not in an evolutionary line to any animal we see today. This means that they are not transitional at all but just a variety that we have no way of knowing their “ancestors” or their “descendants.” Maybe that is because these “ancestors” and “descendants” are imaginary constructs of the materialist human mind.

    “In 1859, when Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”, but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2]”

    So Darwin either prophesied that once we have more evidence from the fossil record, that this “gravest objection” to his theory would be overturned or he admitted that the fossil record does not support his theory. There have been millions and millions of fossils dug up and classified, and the supposed transitional forms are remarkably minimal and inconclusive, as we have just read. The fossil record shows stasis, not transition.

    “A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups…However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

    Quite the confession, wouldn’t you say? Once again, this means that the supposed transitional forms are not transitional at all.

    “In fact…because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

    Yep…just what I always thought. Huge gaps in the supposed relationships. Missing chains, not missing links. No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

    “The phrase “missing link” has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to an outdated view of evolution.”

    So the outdated view was wrong. Now that we have no proof of “ancestors” or “descendants”, link is too small of a word/concept. There is no link. There is no chain. Just variety and extinction.

    “Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete.”

    That is an understatement. Shouldn’t be “practically no” instead of “not every”? Lets see which is correct.

    “The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.”

    So they base their evolutionary constructs on much less than 1%. And of that small fraction of everything that has ever existed, there are maybe 1,000,000th of a percent (I am being quite generous here) that could be considered transitional forms. OK, I get it. It is not missing links or missing chains…it is missing brains…if we fall for this sort of slight of hand and hopelessly absurd ideology.

    There must have been billions of transitional forms in the past according to evolutionary theory. If evolution is still rolling on, where are the transitional forms that are living today? There should be hundreds of thousands for us to investigate. But alas, they are imaginary also.

    You decide who exercises the most faith in their religion. I just do not have enough blind faith to be a materialist evolutionist. I will stick with the much more rational conclusion that we were created by YHWH.

    Shalom

  20. Boris—“Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis.”

    I don’t know who you’ve mistaken me for but I haven’t been able to listen to Dr. Brown’s programs for well over a month. I’m a torchbearer for Dr. Brown because I believe he’s one of only a few voices who are courageous enough to not be brow beaten by hate spewing, hypocritical zealots who would love to whip him into submission and silence his ministry completely. I also wholeheartedly support his outreach to the Jewish communities, both here and around the world, as well as his missionaries who take the Gospel to the furthest reaches on the globe. I was able to catch a live broadcast just the other day and I did comment. My habit is to select what I can, when I can from OnePlace and play them in the late evenings or the wee hours and sometimes comment on the topics that interest me. I don’t know how you translated that into me “commenting on just about every thread on a daily basis.” You really don’t mind stretching the truth beyond recognition do you?

    I’d like to know as well as others would, where your intense loathing for any and all Messianics comes from? I’ve never met a sectarian jihadist with a zeal quite like yours before. In reading many of your posts again, I can’t help but notice how you change your basis premise to suit any particular statement you wish to make at the time. It’s as if you’re incorporating statements from more than one person; like there’s three or more fielding the balls. Maybe that’s it?

    Anyway, these last few days is the most I’ve written in months and that’s just sad because I’m really lagging behind.

    I haven’t read your previous post yet.

  21. Boris,

    Just thought you would like to know that your daughter could still do the highest quality work in her field and reject the evolutionary garbage that she has been taught.

    Dr Ian Macreadie-Creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist

    Dr Ian Macreadie is a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

    In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. He is also adjunct professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

    The above is form: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp

    Shalom

  22. Boris, you bring up a very interesting subject (rather, you rabidly regurgitate the objection); Did an historical Jesus exist?

    This discussion could go on for quite a time, ast it encompasses many potential disciplines and writings. Suffice it for now to point out that no-one, either followers nor enemies of Christianity during the early first and second centuries, and beyond, ever refuted that the Jesus we are talking about really, actually, physically existed.

    To quote a historian you may respect:
    Cambridge historian Michael Grant, an atheist, argues that the New Testament should be considered as evidence in the same way as other ancient history:

    “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”
    -Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004), 199-200.

    Admittedly I have never read the book, but it’s now on my list!

  23. Oh, more quotes from the work referenced above by Michael Grant:

    “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”

    “Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory [Osiris, Mithras, etc.]. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”

    This is just one book, after a very brief search. I plan to dig more deeply into this topic. Thank you, Boris.

    I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Grant came to, but it is worth noting that this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.

    Even people who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand, and found Him missing from the grave, still chose not to believe in Him or follow Him. Such is the way of man.

  24. When men don’t believe in God they are open to every crazy thing, but when they believe in him, they are open to righteousness, truth, justice, mercy, and grace because Jesus is the door.

    I believe it’s quite possible that many men come through the door they were not aware of as they came to the light.

    All truth is of God and every bit of it is a part of Christ.

  25. 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

    Response: That’s because a wise man shouts it out loud for everyone to hear. The Bible has many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking.

    Matt B

    Scientists recognize tht RNA or other self-replicating complex molecules would not arise spontaneously.

    Response: You haven’t a clue what real scientists recognize and what they don’t. There’s no other explanation at the present. The man from dirt woman from a rib explanation is a failed hypothesis. It explains nothing but that’s the same for all theistic “explanations” anyway.

    Not outside of the Darwinian or neo- Darwinian faithful, that is.

    Response: You mean like every Christian college and university in the world with a science department? Those Darwinian faithful? ROFL! I love rubbing that in to creationists. How humiliating is it for you to have to admit that your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities reject your anti-science claims and insist on teaching evolution? Don’t try to tell me they teach that evolution is flawed either. They teach students how nature structures itself through evolution by natural selection so they can use this knowledge to make more effective drugs, new crop products, better poisons to fight an ever evolving insect population among many other uses.

    We should most reasonably conclude that something or someone meant for it to be so.

    Response: Someone meant for most of the animals on the planet to live their lives in fear of being eaten by other animals until they eventually were? Life must destroy other life to survive. Gee that’s a good plan. How long do you think it took someone to come up with that idea?

    Bo
    No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

    Response: Oh really? What explains the existence of nylon eating bacteria better, evolution by natural selection or an artistic Creator? Creationists claim that all species were created at the same time. However nylon did not exist until the 1930s, which of course is a real problem for creationists. But then what isn’t?

    There must have been billions of transitional forms in the past according to evolutionary theory. If evolution is still rolling on, where are the transitional forms that are living today? There should be hundreds of thousands for us to investigate. But alas, they are imaginary also.

    Response: It’s hard to believe anyone would still make that claim in the 21rst Century. There are indeed obvious examples of transitional species alive today. Among the better known ones are walking catfish, walking perches and Snakeheads. These species’ predecessors lived only in the water. You can find others on the Internet, any public library, or in the science department of any Christian college or university. However the fact is that all species are transitional and give rise to new species including hominids or humans. In one specific example scientists have observed salmon in a lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 70 years. The research paper on this appeared in Science 290 (5491): 516-518. A clear example of transitional fossils would be the ancestor of the modern horse. Miohippus evolved from its ancestor Mesohippus and there are examples of transitional fossils that show characteristics of both in an intermediate stage. The fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. You can deny these fossils exist if you want to. In fact I think you should tell people that things they can see with their own eyes like living transitional species and transitional fossils really don’t exist and things they cannot see with their own eyes really do. After all isn’t that what religion has been doing for thousands of years?

    You decide who exercises the most faith in their religion. I just do not have enough blind faith to be a materialist evolutionist. I will stick with the much more rational conclusion that we were created by YHWH.

    Response: You’re welcome to that conclusion but don’t try claiming it’s a rational one. You deny rational science in favor of non-rational authoritarianism.

    Sheila
    Boris—”Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis.”

    Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.

    I’d like to know as well as others would, where your intense loathing for any and all Messianics comes from? I’ve never met a sectarian jihadist with a zeal quite like yours before. In reading many of your posts again, I can’t help but notice how you change your basis premise to suit any particular statement you wish to make at the time.

    Response: That is not true. I defy you to give an example of me changing my premise. I made one particular statement that you continue to ignore and avoid. I responded to your claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies with a clear and satisfactory rebuttal. That is that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. That explanation caught you completely off guard as your total silence on the matter has demonstrated. Your claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies has been refuted. Are there any other common Christian claims about the Bible you’d like to see annihilated?

    It’s as if you’re incorporating statements from more than one person; like there’s three or more fielding the balls. Maybe that’s it?

    Response: I’m incorporating statements from more than one person? There is only one Boris the Atheist. You people hardly ever use your own words to make a point but rather cut and paste and post links to other people’s arguments. Can’t defend your faith all by yourself? Maybe that’s it?

    Bo
    Just thought you would like to know that your daughter could still do the highest quality work in her field and reject the evolutionary garbage that she has been taught.

    Response: You could have a better life if you rejected all the religious garbage you’ve been taught.

    The above is form: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp

    Response: Yeah the people who claim the earth is only a few thousand years old and that would mean of course that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

    Matt B

    Boris, you bring up a very interesting subject (rather, you rabidly regurgitate the objection); Did an historical Jesus exist?

    Response: All your appeals to authority and attempts at denigrating the view that Jesus Christ never existed are nothing but hot air and reflect the desperation of your position. I challenged Bo several times to produce the best evidence that Jesus existed. He has completely ignored the challenge but continued to pester me with anti-science propaganda from creationist websites thereby conceding the point that there is no secular evidence for a historical Jesus. Perhaps you’d like to present in your own words a brief case for a historical Jesus. While you’re at it Sheila was unable to counter my rebuttal to her claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies thereby conceding that point. Any comment?

    This discussion could go on for quite a time, ast it encompasses many potential disciplines and writings. Suffice it for now to point out that no-one, either followers nor enemies of Christianity during the early first and second centuries, and beyond, ever refuted that the Jesus we are talking about really, actually, physically existed.

    Response: You have it backwards. No one has ever proved that Jesus actually existed. The burden of proof is on the people making the outrageous claim that God took human form, not the people who don’t believe the claim.

    -Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004), 199-200.

    Response: Michael Grant wrote biographies of Paul and Peter. Of course no real historian would write such nonsense since the only source we have for either figure is the Bible. Grant’s area of expertise was in the history of U.S. currency or something like that. You could look it up.

    Matt B
    I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Grant came to, but it is worth noting that this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.

    Response: You just love making bald assertions without providing a shred of evidence to back them up don’t you? How do you know his scholarship is of excellent quality? You haven’t even read it! I’ll tell you what you do. Provide an example of what you think passes for Grant’s so-called “scholarship” for me to examine. I’ve read Grant’s drivel and I will prove that it does not meet or even come close to the standards required by historical method. Are you up for the challenge Matt? If you’re not retract the claim that “this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.” Because it is not.

    Even people who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand, and found Him missing from the grave, still chose not to believe in Him or follow Him. Such is the way of man.

    Response: How do we know about the people who supposedly witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand and the women at the tomb? From the gospel stories them selves! The witnesses you claim as evidence for a historical Jesus are all PART OF THE SAME STORY! What you are doing is like proving the existence of Superman by citing the eyewitness testimony of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White! You can’t use the story itself to prove the story is true. What I want is corroborating evidence from outside the of Bible that Jesus performed miracles, heeled the sick, raised the dead, was tried and found innocent but was crucified anyway and then rose from the dead and appeared to many people including 500 at once. Along with that I need corroborating evidence that dead people came back to life, unburied themselves, climbed out of their graves, walked into Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. Do you see the problem Matt?

  26. Boris, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is,

    Ignorant of science
    Believes a myth
    superstitious
    Has failing scholarly abilities

    No matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

    No matter the multitude of people who have experienced the Living Lord and willingly testify to such.

    There is no futher hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN.

    In light of these things it is impossible to reason with you because you are unreasonable.

    The points I and others have made are valid, worthy of the defense of our positions, and open to sincere critical review. We have offered many refutations of your points that mainly go unanswered- a rant is not a counterpoint. So let them stand as a witness for others who are reading these posts. Let them stand as a witness between you and me; let the truth judge between you and me.

  27. And why is the world so against the light of God?

    Isn’t it because they don’t have a love for righteousness?

    I wonder if they began in life by finding that they had a love for what is right. If so I suppose they found it to be a bit burdensome at times, or at least a bit uncomfortable at times because we often find that we ourselves are not always right.

    We are not always as right as we would like to be.

    Sometimes we stumble at the truth, or at least have some difficulty with it because of something
    inherent within our nature, something we were born with.

    If we didn’t love what is right we would never have come to Jesus would we?

    Have some people sold their love of the truth? If so, I wonder what it is they thought to get in exchange for it.

    Whatever it is, I suppose they would do well to try to take it back, and exchange it for the truth, if the grace of God would still permit them to do so.

    I’ve heard it said that as long as there is life there is hope. But what if one is spiritually lifeless?

    They would have to come to Christ wouldn’t they?

    Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life.

    So there must be some life in the truth. Truth lives forever doesn’t it? It has to because it is in Jesus, right? He is eternal life.

  28. Boris–“Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”

    Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

    I’m still typing away and it will most likely take me all weekend. When I’ve got it worked up I’ll post it, but I can’t say right now when that’ll be.

  29. I just re-read Boris’ comparison of the Gospel of Jesus the Resurrected Savior, to the Superman comic/story (well known to all as fiction, as the writer clearly intended for us to understand it). He believes these two are equivalent.

    Of course the first message is intended and witnessed to be true, the other is not.

    When a man cannot distinguish between these two types of writing, there is nothing to do but ask him if he’s comfortable, and check the schedule for his meds.

  30. Our nation, the USA, was founded by Christians and Deists/Theists. Our governmental structure was intentionally patterned after principles found within the Bible: Man’s accountability to God, man’s accountability to one-another, man’s inherent sinfulness and therefore the need for checks and balances within government, and of course much more. Christian teachings in schools and universities were found to be essential to continue as a people who could in fact self-govern after the manner we began. Essential to ensure continuing freedoms for economical and religious pursuits. This of course does not mean that this nation is perfect.

    Thus far, our nation has overwhelmingly been an example of prosperity, charity within and throughout the world, peace within our borders (with some notable exceptions), and Justice.

    The Soviet Union was founded on a system which keeps Atheism at its core, and functioned under the notions that mankind is no different from animals in the very essence of what we are. God was taken out of the government and the schools. Church practice and belief (in fact any religion) was actively persecuted.

    Corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a godless “utopia”.

    Practically speaking, which system of belief has been proven better?

  31. Boris,

    You asked for my own words and I’ve devoted my weekend to condensing the reason for my faith in the accuracy and integrity of the New Testament Scriptures and their witness to the truth of Messiah, Jesus. I fear for you, Boris. I really won’t continue to engage you after this post as I don’t want to hear anymore that I know you’ll have to give an account for when the Lord returns. It’s never to late to investigate the truth of Scripture for yourself, perhaps in secret even. I didn’t investigate it in order to see where I could fit Jesus in to Scripture, I just started reading and when I got to the end of both Testaments I had to make a decision. You can do the same, start at the beginning I mean, and listen to the voice speaking throughout Scripture. It’s not the voice of ordinary men.

    To my brothers in Christ; I just want to say how proud I am to be among you! I’m honored to stand with you as we suffer the reproach of Christ together. As any independant jury would find, each of you has presented excellent and solid reasoning together with cold, hard facts that should give anyone pause when considering the validity and basis of our faith. Faith is not a blind profession of ignorance, nor is it an outgrowth of unsubstantiated and unreasonable evidence. Our faith is in the truth and the truth speaks for itself to any with ears to hear.

    HOW CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS DIDN’T JUST PAINT JESUS INTO THE ROLE OF MESSIAH AS WAS OUTLINED IN THE FIRST TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

    Your premise is that an arrow was fired from the First Testament Scriptures and it landed in first century Galilee where a band of rag-tag, uneducated country bumpkins, for reasons unknown to us, decided to make up a fictional character to fit the First Testament prophesies outlining a Messiah who would deliver a people from their enemies and restore Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    At one point you agreed that the Messianic prophecies existed in the First Testament. Another time you relegated all of Scripture to a dung heap and then again you moved back to your previous position that the first century Jewish proletarians painted Jesus into already existing prophesies written before 1 B.C–1 A.D.. Then you moved back once more to your claim that all the prophecies had been written after the fact, especially Daniel; yes, especially Daniel.

    The Orthodox Jewish scholars as well as Secular scholars really dislike dealing with the book of Daniel as he’s the prophet that wrote specifically of the time frame as well as the fact that Messiah would be cut off as Isaiah also declared, and Daniel predicted the destruction of Jerusalem once again and the exile of the Jewish nation to the ends of the earth. Whether or not they like Daniel, he couldn’t possibly have written the prophecies of Messiah “after the fact” as the First Testament Scriptures were canonized, “sealed” in the third century B.C. when they were translated into Greek. We have the archaeological evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls to attest to the First Testament Scriptures. The jury’s still out on whether or not there are four very small fragments of New Testament Scriptures among the scrolls in one of the caves or not. Who knows when or if we’ll get to see them? My estimation is that it’s not likely at all to be forthcoming anytime soon.

    The arrow, we both agree, represents the First Testament Messianic Prophecies. The New Testament Scriptures relating the life of Jesus represents the paint used to draw the circle around the arrow.

    The first reason that comes to mind as to the fallacy of that argument is that Jesus was nothing like the Messiah that the Jews were expecting at all. He didn’t come as King Messiah to rule on the throne of David with Jerusalem as his captital city from where he was expected to dispense judgment to all the nations as retribution for their hatred of Him and His people, Israel. To that ideal all the prophets agree; Messiah would rule the nations of earth with a rod of iron and all would bow their knees to both Him and to the Jews who would be in possession of the Holy Land again when he takes up reign. So, he was not the Lion of the Tribe of Judah that would come and tear the nations apart in fury and zeal for His Holy Hill of Zion and His people Israel. He was not the dashing figure of a deliverer in the least. Anything but the convoluted story of Jesus of Nazareth would have been much more palatible and better received when considering the central theme of the Messianic expectations. That’s the number one reason they wouldn’t have chosen Jesus in the first place. It’s also the number one reason that the Orthodox Jews reject Jesus’ claims to this day.

    The next argument to dispute the bulls-eye remedy is that no one was expecting Messiah to die and then be resurrected. That the idea of such a convoluted occurance never crossed the Disciples minds is attested to in the very writings themselves. Why write in an incident that only serves to further complicate your intentions? The invented writings would have certainly been better received and much more palatible to a greater number of first century Jews than that their Messiah was crucified in such a gastly and ignominous way, humiliated and degradated, placed in a tomb as dead, gone and buried; yet, here He is again–resurrected! What in the world would have possessed anyone in any century whatsoever to resurrect a leader who died in such a manner as Jesus did, when any sensible people would have admitted He wasn’t really their Messiah? The very resurrection story in the New Testament Scriptures is the strongest case we can make for the Disciples’ not painting Jesus around the arrow.

    The details we find in the New Testament Scriptures together with all of the negative publicity they include is another reason why no people would have made up such things in order to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes; it just isn’t literarily sound to include the narratives, anecdotal evidence, detailed chronology that their adversaries could easily gainsay, not to mention their including several mis-matched versions of the same events they did if they were painting a lie. If the authors were lying they would have made every effort to keep their narratives flawlessly straight, after all who would want their charade expoused for what it was? No, it makes no sense to let any other versions loose than those which were well polished and purposefully contrived. What advantage did they gain by obviously doing otherwise? There was a conspiracy of twelve who told and wrote various and seemingly incongruous accounts of the same events they’d invented? To what avail was that?

    The details and the story line is much, much too long in narrative and specific details to pass for contrived. Spit it out and be done with it already! The more nuanced detail they included the greater the chance for them to be exposed. Yet what are the New Testament Scriptures if not nuanced and detailed and fantabulous all at once? The Jews, if they were anything at all, and I absolutely believe they are a people who are many things at once, were a people who told the truth, meaning the good the bad and the ugly. They don’t write at all like scribes from the other nations and yet they’re recorded by almost every ancient civilization that they had any dealings with; Egypt being contested by some, even though there’s a wonderful stone relief that some scholars believe can be interpreted as Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, but no matter, more evidence is coming no doubt. The Disciples, in perfect keeping with Jewish literary style, had the presense of mind to cap off their Scriptures using the same idiosyncratic pattern of self-deprecation in order to deceive their own people? Why would a remnant of any people go to such lengths as to stoke the ire of their foreign captors, especially the raging fury of Rome in order to promulgate and then die, all for the telling of a lie? That especially makes no sense as their lie should have died out with them but it didn’t, it grew and spread the world over and it is still alive and well today. A lie, leading 2.1 BILLION (yes, that’s 2.1 BILLION!) people by the nose; keeping them from enlightenment and the new age of humanism where any and all things are true for the highly evolved. Why, just imagine all that wasted talent going to Heaven instead of hell! I had to throw the Boogie-Man in, after all he’s a major bad boy in the yarn.

    Taking the Gospel to the Gentiles is another foreign element that first century Jews would not have incorporated into their testimony. The prophecies concerning the Gentiles weren’t exactly heralded from the rooftops as they aren’t all that obvious in the First Testament to begin with. They’re rather obsure references that one would back into as opposed to making them the crux of your witness by the end of the New Testament writings. If the Jews of the first century were going to paint Jesus as Messiah there’s absolutely no reason to take it on that tragectory. That’s a great big strike against them making it up. Why would they risk their entire convoluted campaign at deception by capping off First Testament Scriptures with the bringing in of the Gentiles as their central theme? Does a hoax of that magnitude really need that kind of overkill? It doesn’t stand to reason that they would even think to embark on that venture of their own accord. No; something changed. It was a change that happened quickly and dramatically that had the Jews taking the knowledge of Messiah to the Gentiles. Unheard of! In fact, that’s another strike against Jesus if they were wanting to paint a discernable bulls-eye. It’s still a strike against Him in the minds of the Orthodox who await the receiving of the Gentiles after Messiah comes to reign. Not good thinking to include that bit about the Gentiles.

    In typology, Messiah, Jesus, is the only person who will ever fit the bill for the Jews Messiah. The Disciples could never in a million years, unlike Lucy, come to fabricate all the typological elements conceived of in the First Testament Scriptures and proceed to paint Jesus in type and antitype of them all. That’s rather the work of a genius indeed. Scholars are still disecting the vast complexity of all that Jesus represents even today. It’s almost absurd, in fact it is absurd, to even entertain the thought that those country bumpkins sat down and were doing exactly that, writing Jesus into typology. It’s ridiculous to conceive of mortal man polishing off what is hidden from view to begin with. They would have been working from the perspective of tunnel vision. We sometimes forget that they weren’t working with two Testaments. There was one and only one Canon of Scripture. It’s not until we step back and we’re able to view the entire picture from beginning to end that we can honestly and thoroughly appreciate the sheer magnitude of all that would entail. It’s clear to me they didn’t have the presense of mind or the wherewithal to fill in typology even before the Gospels left Judea. Yet there we have it; the New Testament Scriptures complete with type and antitype.

    The writers of the Gospels certainly wouldn’t have portrayed themselves as ignorant fools when relating the very things they’re meaning to substantiate. To what purpose? Their intent is to disseminate a lie yet they make themselves ignorant of the same lie? They include their personal biases and manifold weaknesses, their prejudiced national pride and their deficient knowledge of their own Scriptures all in the name of getting the lie out. That’s not reasonable either. Anyone wanting to pull the wool over other people’s eyes concerning a subject matter as volatile as the coming of the Jewish Messiah and King, all the while under the iron fist of Rome, would do much better to cling only to the most obvious of Scriptural references and leave any and all detractions out of the script, especially leaving out completely the more ignominious and demeaning details of Messiah’s death that they deliberately included as factual. Not good when selling a lie. They’d be setting themselves up to much closer scrutiny and that wouldn’t do at all. Why did they include all that they did? And why did they go to their deaths rather than confessing their deception and sparing their lives and the lives of their family and friends? That fact alone makes the least sense of all. They died clinging to what they knew was a lie. No. Not reasonable at all.

    That Jesus’ immediate Disciples as well as many others willingly went to their deaths believing they had personally witnessed a resurrected Jesus is one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the truth of their beliefs. It is also the most convincing argument for Jesus being the promised Messiah of the Jews. Messiah is endowed with blessings far and above His brothers such as Joseph stands in type of. God, the Father, called Messiah, “My Son,” and as the promised seed and heir to David’s throne, Messiah is uniquely spoken of in the First Testament as being the Judge of all the Earth. Judgment is handed to Messiah in the First Testament and Jesus repeated the same as refering to Himself. It’s way beyond the scope of this discussion to bring the deity of Christ to bear and I’ll not be entertaining any queries concerning it at all. But the more profound and stupidest claim the writers of the New Testament could have made was that Jesus was One with YHWH. That is definitely taking things way to far! “Who would have believed their report?” Yet it was believed and it is still believed today and that will still be true of tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. To see the sky break open and Messiah coming on the clouds of heaven will be a joyous site to all who believe. I pray you’re among us Boris. I pray that you’re brave enough to revisit the Scriptures from beginning to ending “and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.” Amen.

    HEY, ALL OF YOU 2.1 BILLION WHO STAND FOR CHRIST—-DON’T GIVE UP AND DON’T GIVE IN—LIFT YOUR HEADS AND LOOK UP! HE WHO OVERCOMES AND STANDS FAST IN HIS FAITH TO THE END, HAVING OVERCOME THE SPIRIT OF THIS AGE, WILL BE CALLED THE SONS OF GOD AND WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!! BLESSINGS TO ALL 2.1 BILLION OF YOU!! BLESSINGS IN JESUS’ NAME!!

  32. Boris, I also pray that you’d be among us. Though I gain absolutely nothing from the hope and labor, I would gain great joy and rejoicing if you become a follower of Christ. To walk with you in the Eternal City would be full reward.

    So much more does the Son of God yearn for you, to give you the Kingdom gladly.

  33. Here’s a link to a couple of good books:

    http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm

    And there’s this from 62 A.D., which would put it within 32 years of Boris’ challenge of writings attesting to Jesus within 40 yrs. of His death and resurrection, stated as 30 A.D., taken from Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”–20.200 where it reads as follows:

    “Therefore, understanding the situation [that the Sadducees are tougher than the Jews in judging others] Ananas recognized an opportunity because Festus had died and [his replacement] Albinus was still on his way. He assembled th Sanhedrin of judges and brought forth James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ and some others as lawbreakers. Having accused them, he delivered them to be stoned.”

    And please keep me and my nephew, Ashton, in your prayers. I’m going back undercover… 🙂

  34. Matt B
    Boris, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is,
    Ignorant of science
    Believes a myth
    superstitious
    Has failing scholarly abilities

    Response: The existence of absurd beings like Satan, demons, angels, things like hell and heaven, and the occurrence of supernatural healings and other miracles have not been documented. Anyone who takes a story literally that mentions these kinds of bogies and hocus-pocus has no business identifying them self as a scholar.

    No matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

    Response: Matt you should really think about your arguments before you make them. They can all be turned on their heads and used against you. You creationists pretend to know more about biology and evolution than actual trained and employed evolutionary biologists no matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, such as the existence of transitional fossils, observed speciation, the facts of common descent, etc., no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

    No matter the multitude of people who have experienced the Living Lord and willingly testify to such.

    Response: People of other religions make the exact same claims about experiencing their God and willingly testify to such. Why should I accept your claims and deny theirs? No dice Matt. I can’t accept something as evidence from you for the existence of your God such as personal experience that you would not accept as evidence from a member of another religion as evidence for their God. Why should I? You have the exact same amount of evidence that your God exists as other religions have that their Gods exist: zero. “The kinds of things that religious people offer as evidence for their brand of religion, they do not accept as evidence when proffered by adherents of other religions. Religions do not accept each other’s miracles, revelations, prophets, or holy books… In the absence of any convincing reason to accept one set of claims while rejecting the rest, the simplest conclusion is that they are all…” – Greg Erwin

    There is no futher hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN.

    Response: There is no further hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN. Really Matt, look in the mirror when you say that.

    In light of these things it is impossible to reason with you because you are unreasonable.
    The points I and others have made are valid, worthy of the defense of our positions, and open to sincere critical review. We have offered many refutations of your points that mainly go unanswered- a rant is not a counterpoint. So let them stand as a witness for others who are reading these posts. Let them stand as a witness between you and me; let the truth judge between you and me.

    Response: Repeat these objections you have made to anything I’ve said that has supposedly gone unanswered. I’ll be glad to debunk them all over again.

    Sheila
    Boris–”Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”
    Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

    Response: I’d have to Email it to you as an attachment. I don’t know if I can post my Email address on this blog. I’m not sure what the rules are about that. Perhaps whoever moderates the comments on this site could let me know.

    Matt B
    I just re-read Boris’ comparison of the Gospel of Jesus the Resurrected Savior, to the Superman comic/story (well known to all as fiction, as the writer clearly intended for us to understand it). He believes these two are equivalent.

    Response: You missed the salient point. The characters in a story do not serve as witnesses that the story is true. They’re all part of the same story. Apologists will ask why the disciples believed if they hadn’t seen the resurrected Jesus. But the disciples are part of the gospel stories and they exist only in the stories and NOWHERE ELSE. History knows absolutely nothing about ANY of the disciples. So they are as mythical as the mythical Jesus.

    Of course the first message is intended and witnessed to be true, the other is not.

    Response: That is where I disagree. What evidence do you have that the gospel stories were intended to be understood as a literal account of actual events? That many people have believed they were? That’s all you have to go on because there is nothing that could corroborate any of the stories in the gospels. Understanding these stories as historical distorts their meaning. A prophet who speaks of a coming judgment to inaugurate God’s kingdom is a figure in the ancient literary world. You are defining the gospel stories in terms not shared by their authors and giving them a meaning they do not bear. The different narratives about Jesus’ birth, baptism, teaching, miracle working, suffering and resurrection fulfill a coherent function in ancient literature. The motifs of wine and fertility borne by a dying and rising divine figure in the passion narrative reiterate the myths of Dionysus. The festivals of Dionysus were the most popular in antiquity and this divine-human figure played different roles in ancient literature. The figure of a god-man who relinquishes his life and who is born again is as fundamental to mythic reflection of the natural cycle of agriculture as it is central to the theme of resurrection. Overcoming death through suffering marks the self-sacrifice of the hero, which leads to expressions of joy through wine and food. These are the same basic themes present in Plutarch’s description of Dionysus. Jesus had much more in common with Dionysus than he does with Isaiah’s Israel.

    When a man cannot distinguish between these two types of writing, there is nothing to do but ask him if he’s comfortable, and check the schedule for his meds.

    Response: It’s you and your Christian friends who cannot distinguish between these two types of writing. Many scholars recognize the mythic nature and language of the gospel stories. “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” – John Dominic Crossan

    Matt B
    Our nation, the USA, was founded by Christians and Deists/Theists. Our governmental structure was intentionally patterned after principles found within the Bible: Man’s accountability to God, man’s accountability to one-another, man’s inherent sinfulness and therefore the need for checks and balances within government, and of course much more.

    Response: What a load of religious propaganda and nonsense! The Bible knows nothing of democracy and the only governments pictured in it are theocracies. Our laws and system of government are patterned after the ancient Greek and Roman laws and governments.

    The Soviet Union was founded on a system which keeps Atheism at its core, and functioned under the notions that mankind is no different from animals in the very essence of what we are. God was taken out of the government and the schools. Church practice and belief (in fact any religion) was actively persecuted.
    Corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a godless “utopia”.
    Practically speaking, which system of belief has been proven better?

    Response: Before communism existed, corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a God fearing organization known as the Christian Church. And let’s not forget Nazi Germany was a Christian nation in which Hitler claimed to have wiped out atheism. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Fundamentalists love to conflate atheism with communism. Atheism is not a system of belief. It’s a word that describes disbelief in any Gods. That’s all and nothing more. The system of belief that is comparable to Christianity is communism in which the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity is replaced by the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent state. In my opinion both are equally nuts.

    Sheila

    Boris,
    You asked for my own words and I’ve devoted my weekend to condensing the reason for my faith in the accuracy and integrity of the New Testament Scriptures and their witness to the truth of Messiah, Jesus…. You can do the same, start at the beginning I mean, and listen to the voice speaking throughout Scripture. It’s not the voice of ordinary men.

    Response: I studied the Bible in college. I wrote papers on it and I’ll be glad to prove it by posting some of them right here on this blog. You’d be very surprised I’m sure and the things I prove about the Bible would shock you. I studied Ancient Greek in high school and college, a private Christian college. I’ll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible with anyone including and especially Dr. Michael Brown. Can you tell me who Solomon’s mother was and what her father’s name was? Oh that’s right you’re not speaking to me anymore. I’m fine with that because you don’t want to discuss my original post you just want to try to convert me. It really bothers you fundamentalists that many people cannot be frightened into believing the way you were. Your arguments only sound good to people who desperately want to believe them anyway the way you want to. The rest of us can easily see through them as I demonstrated with my refutation of your claim that Jesus fulfilled many messianic prophecies. You really should learn to accept this because it’s true; you’re wasting your time trying to convert someone who doesn’t believe in an afterlife. Only a person frightened out of their mind by the myth of hell could be convinced that Christianity’s lame arguments are valid. Once a person believes in hell then and only then have you hooked a fish – a mental slave. They’ll believe anything at that point.

    Matt B
    Boris, I also pray that you’d be among us. Though I gain absolutely nothing from the hope and labor, I would gain great joy and rejoicing if you become a follower of Christ. To walk with you in the Eternal City would be full reward.
    So much more does the Son of God yearn for you, to give you the Kingdom gladly.

    Response: No thanks Matt. I am my own person and I am a free thinker. I could never adopt a religion that demands that I keep my thoughts in captivity the way your religion does. Besides you can ignore my posts but they point out very good reasons to reject the claims of Christians and Christianity.

  35. Boris,

    I knew you were raised in knowledge of the Christian faith from the beginning. You can post the link to Dr. Brown’s show, we do it all the time.

  36. Boris,

    I mis-read the sentence about your email address, I thought it was the link for Dr. Brown’s show you were talking about.

    I don’t know about the other.

  37. Sheila,
    you’ve said at least three times you were going to quit this. See how the devil leads you on?
    Boris proved himself Lawless many blogs ago; yet he continues to fill this thread with his name.
    How can you debate with someone who makes his own rules, and is his own final authority?
    just a gentle nudge, sister:
    In Him, Ron M.

  38. Thanks Ron,

    I have no intention of debating him on any other points. I really am intent on not responding whether or not he posts the link to the other show. I’ve not searched for it and have many things I need to be doing.

    Thanks again for your words! God Bless!

  39. Bore Us,

    You just say the same unfounded things over and over and misquote us and “turn our arguments” upside down and do not deal with the topics brought up and do not read our links.

    I wrote: No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

    Your Response: Oh really? What explains the existence of nylon eating bacteria better, evolution by natural selection or an artistic Creator? Creationists claim that all species were created at the same time. However nylon did not exist until the 1930s, which of course is a real problem for creationists. But then what isn’t?

    The bacteria is still bacteria. It didn’t become a cave fish or an archaeopteryx. That we have now some bacteria that can eat nylon only means that there was genetic information previously contained in bacteria that when expressed caused such a thing or that there was a mutation that would allow for it. Adaptation is not molecules to man evolution. Neither is genetically engineering corn to withstand pesticide. And for the record, it takes outside intelligence to genetically engineer anything.

    Concerning supposed horse evolution:

    “The horse series has long been a showcase of evolution. But in reality, this series is the best argument that can be presented against evolution from the fossil record…This article addresses some of the current problems, and concludes that the horse series probably comprise three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled Hyracotherium. Hyracotherium itself appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals similar to tapirs.” – http://creation.com/horse-evolution

    So we have walking fish. They are still fish. They haven’t turned into amphibians or reptiles or mammals.

    If all Christian colleges taught molecules to man evolution, which they don’t, it wouldn’t prove that evolution is true…just that Christian colleges have been corrupted by false teaching.

    You wrote:
    “I challenged Bo several times to produce the best evidence that Jesus existed. He has completely ignored the challenge but continued to pester me with anti-science propaganda from creationist websites thereby conceding the point that there is no secular evidence for a historical Jesus.”

    You are quite wrong my friend. I quoted Wikipedia and rebutted the evolutionary articles with my own words and thoughts. The best historical evidence that “Jesus existed” is the gospels. That you refuse to accept historical evidence is on evidence that you are not intellectually honest because a previous religious view called Atheism.

    There is no corroborating evidence that you would accept. You do not accept Josephus statements. I f I were to produce an ancient document that spoke of Messiah’s miracles, you would say that it could not be true because miracles do not happen. You would discount the account because of your religious belief in materialism. Casting pearls before swine does not usually accomplish a good meal for the pig or increase the pearl owner’s wealth and happiness.

    You didn’t deal with the fact that there are award winning microbiologists that believe in creation. You want to us to only use your religions documents to prove our religion. You use the “fact” that supposedly all Christian colleges teach evolution to support your belief but fail to acknowledge Creationists that are top notch scientists. You only accept evidence that supports your religious view. You are quite a religious fundamentalist materialist indeed.

    You wrote:
    “You have the exact same amount of evidence that your God exists as other religions have that their Gods exist: zero. “The kinds of things that religious people offer as evidence for their brand of religion, they do not accept as evidence when proffered by adherents of other religions. Religions do not accept each other’s miracles, revelations, prophets, or holy books… In the absence of any convincing reason to accept one set of claims while rejecting the rest, the simplest conclusion is that they are all…” – Greg Erwin”

    This is precisely why we do not accept your religion. Your miracles are too hard to believe. Real science has proved that life doesn’t come from nonlife over and over. Real science has proved that the universe is not random chance. Real science has proved that there was a supernatural first cause.

    You wrote:

    Boris–”Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”
    Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

    Response: I’d have to Email it to you as an attachment. I don’t know if I can post my Email address on this blog. I’m not sure what the rules are about that. Perhaps whoever moderates the comments on this site could let me know.”

    No you wouldn’t. Just post the url as you and we have done above. Or you could click on Sheila’s name at the beginning of her posts and contact her that way. The attachment thing is ridiculous. How do we know that you will not send a virus in that attachment? Just post the url.

    You wrote:
    “It’s you and your Christian friends who cannot distinguish between these two types of writing. Many scholars recognize the mythic nature and language of the gospel stories. “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” – John Dominic Crossan”

    CS Lewis and Sheila show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as true accounts. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to Dominic Crossan.

    “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the Story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159

    Do not forget that CS Lewis remembered everything he ever read. I doubt that Dominic Crossan remembers anything except what he wants to remember, being the revisionist that he is.

    Shalom

  40. Bo
    You just say the same unfounded things over and over and misquote us and “turn our arguments” upside down and do not deal with the topics brought up and do not read our links.

    Response: I turn your arguments on their heads and use them against you so that you will be able to see how truly weak and absurd they are and why I reject them. How many times do I have to repeat that I don’ want to deal with the topics you people bring up? I’m here to comment on the topics Dr. Brown brings up and then read and comment on the subsequent posts having to do only with that particular subject. That’s all. I don’t read links because they all direct you to creationist websites not to peer reviewed papers or relevant data. I know what all the creationist arguments and as I have repeatedly demonstrated on this blog I know how to refute them all. But then that’s no great feat.

    The bacteria is still bacteria… the record, it takes outside intelligence to genetically engineer anything.

    Response: You’re missing the point. The existence of nylon eating bacteria proves that mutations can and do add new information. This refutes the absurd creationist claim that mutations do not produce new information. But the question is what explains the existence of this bacteria better evolution or magic? Where did nylon eating bacteria come from? Answer: It evolved. How did Noah get all the bacteria on the ark and keep it alive anyway Bo? And how come God said man would have dominion over all the other creatures and then God let bacteria and germs have dominion over us? Why did God make bacteria, especially harmful bacteria anyway?

    Concerning supposed horse evolution:

    Response: It is so typical of creationists or anyone who cannot defend their position to commit the logical fallacy known as An Appeal to Authority. Posting a link to a creationist website is futile and reflects the desperation of your position. The Bible’s creation myth has been known to be false for a very long time. It doesn’t matter what creationists say about evolution. No one cares.

    So we have walking fish. They are still fish. They haven’t turned into amphibians or reptiles or mammals.

    Response: These things don’t happen over night but the fossil record indicates over and over and over again that they do indeed happen over and over and over again.

    If all Christian colleges taught molecules to man evolution, which they don’t, it wouldn’t prove that evolution is true…just that Christian colleges have been corrupted by false teaching.

    Response: Evolution isn’t a “teaching.” The subject of biological evolution is a branch of scientific research and its purpose is learning about nature. Creationism is a “teaching” because the creationists don’t do any research. And once again creationism has been shown to be a false teaching.

    You are quite wrong my friend. I quoted Wikipedia and rebutted the evolutionary articles with my own words and thoughts. The best historical evidence that “Jesus existed” is the gospels. That you refuse to accept historical evidence is on evidence that you are not intellectually honest because a previous religious view called Atheism.

    Response: Atheism is not a religious view. Atheists are just people who take a dim view of religion. We also take a dim view of religious people who accuse atheists of being intellectually dishonest. What do we have to lie about? We’re not the ones making outrageous claims about magic and miracles and all without a shred of evidence to back them up. I’d call THAT being intellectually dishonest.

    There is no corroborating evidence that you would accept. You do not accept Josephus statements. I f I were to produce an ancient document that spoke of Messiah’s miracles, you would say that it could not be true because miracles do not happen. You would discount the account because of your religious belief in materialism. Casting pearls before swine does not usually accomplish a good meal for the pig or increase the pearl owner’s wealth and happiness.

    Response: What pearls? Josephus wasn’t even alive when Jesus supposedly was so anything he might have written would be nothing more than hearsay and not even first hand hearsay at that. How does someone repeating what we would now call an urban legend qualify as evidence, may I ask? Besides even your own Christian scholars admit the golden paragraphs in Josephus that supposedly mention Jesus are rank forgeries done by Church propagandist Eusebius. Christians embarrass themselves by having to resort to such spurious “evidence” to support their case for a historical Jesus. This all just proves that there really is no evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed or that any of the events mentioned in the gospels even might have happened.

    You didn’t deal with the fact that there are award winning microbiologists that believe in creation. You want to us to only use your religions documents to prove our religion. You use the “fact” that supposedly all Christian colleges teach evolution to support your belief but fail to acknowledge Creationists that are top notch scientists. You only accept evidence that supports your religious view. You are quite a religious fundamentalist materialist indeed.

    Response: Science isn’t a religion either and science doesn’t use documents to prove anything the way creationists try to do. Scientists use observation, experimentation, demonstration among other methods to discover how the universe works, what it’s made of and how we can best use this knowledge to advance our civilization. Creationists don’t do any of these things because they don’t think they need to and they couldn’t anyway. Creationists think they have all the answers they need already and no amount of evidence or proof that they are wrong will change their minds. That is because they will only accept evidence that supports their religious view.

    This is precisely why we do not accept your religion. Your miracles are too hard to believe. Real science has proved that life doesn’t come from nonlife over and over. Real science has proved that the universe is not random chance. Real science has proved that there was a supernatural first cause.

    Response: That statement shows just how little you know about science and scientific method. In science no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision or even outright rebuttal. Precisely what are these many proofs that life did not come from non-life? If you ignore the question you concede the point and must withdraw your ludicrous claim. Real science has observed that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the scientific consensus is that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. If God could always have existed, so could have mass-energy.

    CS Lewis and Sheila show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as true accounts. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to Dominic Crossan.

    Response: It’s beyond obvious that stories that mentioned all sorts of magical beings such as Satan, demons, God, angels and all sorts of magical occurrences were intended to be true accounts? Sure. Then you top off your “proof” that the gospels are “true” with an ad homenim, a logical fallacy.

    “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends… Do not forget that CS Lewis remembered everything he ever read. I doubt that Dominic Crossan remembers anything except what he wants to remember, being the revisionist that he is.

    Response: Watch how easily your arguments can be turned on their heads and used against you: Crossan and I show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as solar myths. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to C.S. Lewis.

    Do you see how weak and frivolous your arguments appear when they are turned on their heads? Your arguments are weak, fatally flawed, and ridiculous and what is truly pathetic is that’s the best you can do. All of your assertions are made without evidence and you attack the character of anyone who doesn’t share your point of view. C.S. Lewis didn’t even realize that the story he was referring to wasn’t included in any of the early manuscripts but was a later interpolation (a nice word for forgery). So it could not have been an eyewitness account. More importantly the overwhelming consensus among Christian scholars is that the gospels are much too late to be eyewitness accounts of anything. The fact is that there is no witness to the gospels before 190 CE a fact Christian apologists don’t want you to know. “The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them.” – Hans Conzelman (1915-1989), German New Testament Scholar

  41. “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    -Quote from the fair and open-minded biology professor emeritus at Harvard University, Richard Lewontin

    In choosing a priori to eliminate the possibility that there is a Creator, the originator of life, such “scientists” must follow incoherent constructs and fanciful gossamer threads to interpret what they see, and fill in the voids with what they do not see as if it were reality.

    Thank God that not all scientists are this blind.

  42. Bo,

    So much for me going away. You may want to study this scholar’s writing on the subject of Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum. Just because some make statements with such passion and conviction, it will never make them true.

    http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

    “This article thoroughly examines the authenticity of the disputed reference to Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the ‘TF’.”

    “Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.”

    ” — But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

    Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

    [It appears I included the wrong numerical reference previously, I had 20.200]

    “It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators – mostly Jesus Mythologists – who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars.” (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).”

    “Occam’s razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It’s not enough to have a simpler theory if you can’t account for anything. Though we shouldn’t add entities beyond what’s needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what’s needed.” ~ Paul Manata

    “A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.” ~ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)

    “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” ~ C.H. Spurgeon

    Spurgeon stills speaks today; now it’s to the Secular Scientism of our day.

  43. Boris,

    You still didn’t answer the arguments that I posted. You are good at reviling and ridiculing and refusing to answer main points, but not at refuting.

    Shalom

  44. “Bacteria capable of metabolizing nylon were discovered in the 1970s. Nylon is a man-made substance that was developed in the 20th century. Since bacteria had not been exposed to it before then, could their new capacity to consume nylon positively demonstrate evolutionary progress?

    Evolution (also known as macroevolution) is typically described as a natural process that generates new biological structures from less ordered material, such that (given time, selection of fitter individuals in a population, and mutations) “simple” creatures like bacteria are transformed into complex organisms like birds. This process implies a developmental history of life that is incompatible with that described in the Bible, which portrays the creation of fully-formed life (Genesis 1:11-27).

    On the other hand, adaptation (or microevolution) describes the capacity of organisms to undergo limited changes over several generations in order to make better use of, or survive better in, different environments. Creation scientists agree that God’s creatures were given the potential to adapt to different environments, but they propose that these adaptations have natural limits. Adaptations in response to environmental changes are observed in nature, but evolution is not.

    Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms.1 However, examining only the apparent, visible beneficial trait can be misleading. Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place.2 In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

    The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA.3 This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

    This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment.”

    From: http://www.icr.org/article/4089/296/

    Shalom

  45. Boris,

    That bacteria is still bacteria. No change from one type of organism to another. No molecules to man evolution. Still no scientific proof that anything of the sort happened. You really should go back up and read my debunking of the molecular clock so that you can see the ideology and religious faith that evolutionists start with. Remember that I got my quotes directly from Wikipedia, not from any creationist website. Here…I’ll just repost it for you.

    Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed.

    I was reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus about the platypus and found out how evolutionists are baffled by it and how they have supposedly determined when it diverged from the non-egg laying mammals. “Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.[61]” They used a clock. The molecular clock. I did some shopping for that clock, because according to you, Boris, my ideas about history are distorted by believing the Bible’s timescale.

    The quotes below are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock My comments will not be in quotation marks.

    This “clock” isn’t really a clock, but a theory that is much contested. Below are some telling examples of how evolutionary science is not only a theory, but a hopelessly faulty one.

    “The molecular clock (based on the molecular clock hypothesis (MCH)) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses fossil constraints and rates of molecular change to deduce the time in geologic history when two species or other taxa diverged.”

    “The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates.”

    No concrete dates…hmmm?

    “Researchers such as Ayala have more fundamentally challenged the molecular clock hypothesis.[13][14] According to Ayala’s 1999 study, 5 factors combine to limit the application of molecular clock models:”

    They had been using this “clock” for about 40 years to prove things only to find out that it wasn’t really that useful. How bad is it?

    “It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.”

    No direct evidence…hmmm?

    “The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales.”

    So both long and short timescales give it problems and…it is based on statistical inference and…it can only say when one time period is twice as long as another. Since this is the case, how do we know that the intermediate timescales, whatever they might be, are no problem to this “clock”? Aren’t intermediate timescales twice as long as some of the short ones that the clock is not good at determining? It really does run into “particular challenges”, doesn’t it? I would throw away my watch if it didn’t keep good time for 5 seconds or 3 days. How could I trust it for an hour?

    “The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, the use of molecular genetics information to determine the correct scientific classification of organisms or to study variation in selective forces.”

    After all these concessions/confessions, evolutionary science has the audacity to proclaim this “clock” that is just a bad theory to be important. How can this “clock” be an “important tool” if it doesn’t actually work? I have just figured it out…it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”

    Shalom

  46. Boris,

    You wrote:
    “And how come God said man would have dominion over all the other creatures and then God let bacteria and germs have dominion over us?”

    We still have dominion over bacteria. We capture it and do experiments on it, etc. etc. That bacteria can make us sick, or even kill us, does not mean that it has dominion over us.

    Bears and giraffes do not put us in zoos. White mice and monkeys do not make us run mazes and inject us with cancer causing agents in California. Elephants and dogs do not pitch a tent and sell tickets to come watch us do tricks. Dogs and cats do not pass laws that require us to wear tags around our necks.

    Shalom

  47. Boris,

    You wrote,
    “Response: Well C.S. Lewis knew nothing about ancient texts and neither so you, especially that one. Based on the oldest manuscripts and other evidence scholars agree that this particular passage was not originally part of John’s Gospel. It was added later. It couldn’t possibly be an eyewitness account.”

    If you are really interested to find out if the story of the woman caught in adultery was added centuries later, please read the following. If not, just continue to heed your revisionist sources that rewrite history the way they want it to read.

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

    And how do you explain that Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263 – 339) in telling of Papias who (writing in the first third of the 2nd century) and was a bishop of the early Church, mentioned the very passage in question? John wrote in the last part of the first century. And it was referenced in the very first part of the second century and this writing was attested to in the third century. How could it be referenced so early if it wasn’t there originally?

    I would bet that CS Lewis did know those ancient texts. I know that he could read the originals. And if he did, he could quote them in their original language.

    The real question is…can you read the originals and can you remember everything you ever read and why do you trust men that are intent on inventing their own version of reality instead of accepting the testimonies of far more truthful men than themselves.

    Shalom

  48. Boris,

    Uh oh…your transitional forms are loosing a partner and you are loosing an ancestor thanks to British scientists.

    http://www.guampdn.com/VideoNetwork/1662585250001/New-Research-Debunks-Tetrapod-Walk-Theory

    “New research debunks tetrapod walk theory

    May 29 – A team of British-based scientists have produced a three-dimensional reconstruction of the extinct, 360-million-year-old Ichthyostega, which they say debunks long held theories about how the mammal moved on land. School children have long been taught that the animal was one of the first to develop legs, but the scientists say their reconstruction demonstrates otherwise.”

    What do they teach the children in school these days? I wonder if it will take 50 years for the text books to change, like it has in the past. Indoctrination into materialist religion doesn’t take kindly to anyone messing with their transitional forms.

    I wonder if that “very important” molecular clock is failing to tell correct time again.

    Shalom

  49. Boris,

    Maybe I should be a bit more compassionate about your loss of an ancestor…I am sorry for your loss, but your loss is humanity’s gain. We will, one day, be found to have been created in the image of YHWH. It will just take materialist religionists about 3.5 billion years to figure it out.

    Shalom

Comments are closed.